Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Jesus, with that smug sense of superiority you must be the belle of the ball.

It doesn't eliminate the problem. Because they would have no inherent interest in sexual relations yielding children. Which you'll note, since you're such a brilliant mother****er, doesn't preclude them from having children. But that isn't what I said, which I'm sure you noticed since you're incredibly literate.

And since your comprehension simply must be top notch, I shouldn't have to repeat myself. But for the lesser intelligence here on musicbanter, I'll reiterate: To suggest anything is without problem is ****ing stupid. It is an absolute. And if you believe in absolutes, you've either missed out on plenty of life experiences, or you just aren't as intelligent as Buzzoven.

There is no actual problem with homosexuality the only ones that exist are ones that are created by the ignorant.

Two men clearly can not have sex with eachother and yield a child. Is that a problem? No it is not because there are other means of them obtaining a child. Adoption or artificial insemination (having another woman carry and give birth to their child if willing). Same goes for two women. They can either adopt or be artificially inseminated.
Does that mean they have no inherent interest? No it does not.

Change your tampon please.

You are basically creating a problem for the sake of creating one.

__________________

Save the environment, shoot yourself in the head.
And when there is no hope I'll smoke some crack I'll shoot some dope.

I get Big3's point I think in that there are problems related to homosexuality. Like HHB has pointed out, HIV may be more common in the homosexual part of the population or the adopted children of gay couples may get teased more on average than the children of heterosexual couples. But I also get your point, Buzz*oven, the problem with those things are not really homosexuality as much as they are HIV and homophobia themselves. Making homosexuality responsible for the actions of the homophobic or making homosexuality responsible for a disease like AIDS is, to me, morally silly. If people were homotolerant or if medicine had defeated HIV, then there wouldn't be these problems with homosexuality anymore. So, then it makes sense to fight HIV and fight homophobia rather than oppress the homosexual. That way the state can do something for it's people rather than against them which is what we want from society.

By the way, according to Wikipedia, the gay population makes up anywhere from 2 to 13% of western world societies. San Fransisco supposedly has a gay population of 15%. Regardless percentage, in a nation as big as the USA, we're talking about millions of people, many more than there f.ex are norwegians in the world. If you (HHB f.ex) feel society are morally excused when it comes to discriminating against gays because they are such a small minority compared to the majority, you have to remember even 2% of the US population is still a lot of people, certainly enough to make some noise.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.Center for Disease Control link

Well first of all, isn't that a reason why we should encourage gay marriage? If they're not married, doesn't that encourage sleeping around?

Secondly, why is it that gays apparently get more AIDS (and I don't necessarily buy your premise either)? Again, you insinuate without actually spelling it out, because obviously the facts just prove the stereotypes right? Faggots get AIDS because they're immoral sex fiends who don't care who's plugging their hole, right? Just like how everyone knows black people are poor because they're just dumb, lazy niggers right? Just say it, cause we all know you're thinking it. You've already said you think they're disgusting, so just be honest. Quit this bullshit and just admit to being the ignorant white trash we all know you are. Asshole.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvin & Hobbes

To evaluate my character my immediate pleasure is being pitted against my future greed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

The Batlord is amazing man. He loves some fine woman and he gets horny easily. What is better than that.

I get Big3's point I think in that there are problems related to homosexuality.

Exactly. Thank you, Tore.

Edit: Wait I read that rest of your statement. I think you've got me wrong. The issue there is not "does homosexuality create issues" its that when you say there isn't anything wrong with it, you're attempting to eliminate all problems. This is why absolutes are stupid.

This seems like an exercise in semantics, but what I'm saying here is Homosexuality can't do everything. So to make statements like ska lagos did are inherently short sighted. This has less to do with the topic at hand, and more to do with how we should have a discussion. Guys like Buzz and Ska just want to impose intellectual fascism. You need to let the arguments do the work, not intimidate people into accepting something.

No better argument for something exists than someone poorly arguing against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzov*en

You are basically creating a problem for the sake of creating one.

With the exception of "creating", you've got this correct. I think you're so eager to jump up on your socially liberal soapbox that you aren't actually listening to reason. Maybe your problem is hearing difficulty.

I'm saying making absolutist statements, like Ska Lagos did, is stupid. There are no absolutes.

Edit: Wait I read that rest of your statement. I think you've got me wrong. The issue there is not "does homosexuality create issues" its that when you say there isn't anything wrong with it, you're attempting to eliminate all problems. This is why absolutes are stupid.

This seems like an exercise in semantics, but what I'm saying here is Homosexuality can't do everything. So to make statements like ska lagos did are inherently short sighted. This has less to do with the topic at hand, and more to do with how we should have a discussion. Guys like Buzz and Ska just want to impose intellectual fascism. You need to let the arguments do the work, not intimidate people into accepting something.

No better argument for something exists than someone poorly arguing against it.

With the exception of "creating", you've got this correct. I think you're so eager to jump up on your socially liberal soapbox that you aren't actually listening to reason. Maybe your problem is hearing difficulty.

I'm saying making absolutist statements, like Ska Lagos did, is stupid. There are no absolutes.

The only absolute here is ignorance plays a factor in problems.

__________________

Save the environment, shoot yourself in the head.
And when there is no hope I'll smoke some crack I'll shoot some dope.

If you (HHB f.ex) feel society are morally excused when it comes to discriminating against gays because they are such a small minority compared to the majority, you have to remember even 2% of the US population is still a lot of people, certainly enough to make some noise.

Eh? When did I state that I oppose homosexual marriage because of the relatively low percentage of gays in the USA?

Quote:

Like HHB has pointed out, HIV may be more common in the homosexual part of the population or the adopted children of gay couples may get teased more on average than the children of heterosexual couples.

The bold was not something stated; I pointed to a study that showed a disparity in results between children raised by a heterosexual couple and those raised by a homosexual couple. You later stated you felt that such discrepancies were the result of discrimination, and have yet to provide any data to back up that theory.

Eh? When did I state that I oppose homosexual marriage because of the relatively low percentage of gays in the USA?

Eh? When did I state that you oppose homosexual marriage because they are a minority?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

The bold was not something stated; I pointed to a study that showed a disparity in results between children raised by a heterosexual couple and those raised by a homosexual couple. You later stated you felt that such discrepancies were the result of discrimination, and have yet to provide any data to back up that theory.

Well, if I remember correctly, the study you referred to suggested discrimination as the underlying reason behind those results

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I doubt it is though. HIV is far more prevalent among heterosexuals than among lesbians.

Well, I did use the word "may". To me, HIV doesn't really matter in gay marriage controversy.